Pages

Mapping Pathways is a multi-national project to develop and nurture a research-driven, community-led global understanding of the emerging evidence base around the adoption of antiretroviral-based prevention strategies to end the HIV/AIDS epidemic. The evidence base is more than results from clinical trials - it must include stakeholder and community perspectives as well.

08 March 2012

CROI 2012: Results of iPrEx Trial Show Effective Dosage of PrEP

Further testing of drug levels in the blood and immune cells of gay men participating in the iPrEx trial of tenofovir/FTC (Truvada) pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has found that HIV infection in men assigned to Truvada was associated with a lapse in taking the drug after initially adhering reasonably well, rather than never having taken it at all, which was what the researchers originally thought. The research was presented at the 19th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI), in Seattle.

The testing also found that only a minority of participants appeared to be taking their drugs as prescribed, seven days a week, but that protection levels were very high – in the order of 96% of infections prevented – as long as participants took four or more doses a week.

Drug levels plummet three months before infection

The results of iPrEx, a large multi-country study of PrEP in gay men, were announced in 2010 and showed an overall efficacy of 42% – in the trial subjects as a whole, four out of ten HIV infections that would otherwise have happened were prevented if subjects were given Truvada pills to take daily rather than placebo pills. When drug levels were tested in the 48 participants who became HIV-infected on Truvada, and a random sample of uninfected participants, it was found, perhaps not surprisingly, that drug was detectable in only 10% of the infected participants but also, perhaps more surprisingly, in only 50% of the uninfected ones.

New measurements have now looked back at drug levels in stored samples in the months prior to infection and compared with drug levels in the same time period in uninfected participants. In the uninfected participants, consistently 45% or so had detectable drug in their samples across the whole length of the study – confirming that at least half of the participants simply never took their pills. In the infected participants average adherence rates started off the same as in the uninfected. They showed a slight decline in the first year of the trial but then declined to 10% in the three months preceding infection. This suggests a role for quarterly adherence reinforcement.

What levels of tenofovir are protective?

The researchers also wished to find out what levels of tenofovir in the blood were associated with protection against HIV. They did this by comparing drug levels in iPrEx participants with drug levels in a small study called STRAND, presented at last year’s conference (Liu),which gave participants directly-observed doses of tenofovir twice, four time or seven times a week and then measured drug levels in their hair. By then comparing the levels of protection seen in participants with specific drug levels in iPrEx, the researchers were able to compute what drug level was protective.

In iPrEx the average drug levels seen in infected people were consistent with less than one dose of tenofovir a week, but drug levels in those who were not infected were consistent with only about three doses a week. Only 18% of iPrEx participants had drug levels consistent with taking seven doses a week. The investigators used very sensitive tests to look at levels of metabolised tenofovir inside cells and found that a reduction of 90% in the risk of HIV infection correlated with a drug level of 16 femtomols per mol (fm/M – 16 in every million billion molecules by weight). The average level associated with seven doses a week in STRAND was about 38 fm/M and with four doses a week about 32 fm/M.

This enabled them to calculate that the protection offered by taking four doses of tenofovir a week was high, and more or less the same as taking seven doses – that is, in the order of 96%, with a minimum likely protectiveness of 90%. They also calculated that absolutely perfect adherence would offer 99% protection. Taking two doses a week (consistently) would still offer 72% protection, though within wide confidence intervals (56% to 96%) while the 42% level of protection actually seen in iPrEx was consistent with participants taking, on average, one dose a week.

This study has important limitations. STRAND did not measure FTC levels so the iPrEx researchers could not calculate what extra protection was offered by that drug. They also could not measure drug levels at the actual moment of exposure – they were measured at anything between 15 and 90 days after infection. And of course the ‘number of doses a week’ measure is purely an average – most participants probably had much more irregular patterns of taking their pills, with (amongst the 50% who took it at all) periods of good adherence interspersed by periods off drug, maybe correlated with times on and off sex. But it does give a guide to the likely minimum levels of tenofovir that people need to maintain in order to be protected from HIV.

[Content that is linked from other sources is for informational purposes and should not construe a Mapping Pathways position.]

Mapping Pathways by Email

The evidence base is more than P-values and confidence intervals

There is a clear and pressing need to engage policymakers and community stakeholders in the consideration of treatment and prevention options for HIV/AIDS.

This necessity has grown stronger in light of current research showing extraordinary promise of using antiretroviral (ARV) therapies for the prevention of HIV. These ARV-based strategies include a ‘treatment as prevention’ model known as TLC+ (testing, linkage to care, plus treatment) as well as vaginal and rectal microbicides and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP).

Mapping Pathways includes a thorough review of the social, economic and clinical impacts of treatment as prevention and TLC+, as well as microbicides, PrEP, and post-exposure prophylaxis, in the contexts of South Africa, India and the United States. Participation and engagement is at the heart of the study, and stakeholder input across the community, research, policy and governmental spheres will be a core focus in all three countries.

The project’s aim is to provide the research and analysis that communities and policymakers need in order to formulate coherent, evidence-based decisions for HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention strategies in the 21st century.

Mapping Pathways firmly believes that the evidence base is comprised of more than scientific data derived from clinical research – it is more than P-values and confidence intervals. The perspectives, experiences, and collective wisdom of community members and key stakeholders must be valued as much as statistically significant trial results.